When is sci-fi really sci-fi?

[Glom]

Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, Babylon 5, Farscape and all those other good things. They are all generically referred to as sci-fi. But are they? Who can name episodes from any generic sci-fi series that you could say are genuine science fiction as opposed to space stuff?

From Stargate SG-1 'One False Step' SG-1 investigates the downing of a UAV on PJ2-445 and discovers an aboriginal alien species dying. No technobabble, just honest investigation of something alien and distinctive.
'A Matter of Time' Relativity experts can probably nitpick this one to bits but the SGC has to try to disengage the gate which has become stuck open with a wormhole to P3W-451 which is being swallowed by a black hole. First class responses to Carter's technobabble and a bit of problem solving. And yes, Carter did express dismay as to why the time dilation could occur in advance of the gravitational field she thought would cause it.

[BigJim]

Most of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits episodes are sci-fi without spaceflight. But I like spaceflight in science fiction - a reason why I could be described as a Trekkie.

[nebularain]

Well, by "definition" science involves biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics, and astronomy. So, a fiction story involving any of these could rightly be considered "science-fiction."

But the real question would be, can we consider it science-fiction when the science is all wrong?

[pulsar4529]

But the real question would be, can we consider it science-fiction when the science is all wrong?

Well, in my opionion yes. It is still science-fiction but just WRONG sci-fi. Sci-fi is meant to have the technology extrapolated when the story is set into the future, but sometimes you just sit back and wonder, "Where did that come from?"

I think it just depends on the personal preferences of the reader/viewer. I personally like shows/books that seem to try and get their science right. But for some people, the more far out it is the more they like it. In many sci-fi movies the equation seems to be No science+ technobabble=big money.

[gethen]

Well, by "definition" science involves biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics, and astronomy. So, a fiction story involving any of these could rightly be considered "science-fiction."

But the real question would be, can we consider it science-fiction when the science is all wrong?

Oh no. Had this argument with my senior highschool English teacher--the definition of science fiction. I maintained that the novel, Brave New World was a work of sf because it dealt with a society developed in a post-apocalyptic (population disaster) world. She argued that it was not sf because it didn't deal with "real science." She really hated science fiction and was trying to explain why that novel was required reading. I still am not sure how I would define science fiction today. Unfortunately, to my mind, too much of the stuff passed off in bookstores as sf is merely fantasy with laser guns. Not that I hate fantasy, but it's not science fiction.
I think it would be profitable to start this discussion with an agreed upon definition. Failing that, a good argument about the term would also be fun.

[Defender]

I would guess from the examples you gave, and the general demeanour of this board that you're looking for hard science fiction. But one of the best pieces of TV drama I've seen in the past few years came from an otherwise egregious TV series called "Space: Above and Beyond", and it was a fantastic piece of 'soft' science fiction to boot.

Space (arf) prevents me from listing every problem with that series (the premise alone was horribly flawed) but one episode stood out- "Who Monitors the Birds?". It was the story of a genetically engineered soldier, who is sent on a sniper mission onto an alien-held planet, and is marooned and left for dead. The episode was told almost completely without dialogue, and basically details his attempts to survive and escape, interspersed with flashbacks of his childhood and training.

What stands out about the episode was the atmosphere- it had a quietness and eerieness reminiscent of seventies SF, combined with a genuine sense of isolation and being alone in a completely alien world. The protagonist's loneliness on the planet was contrasted nicely with the fact that, as a non-human, he was alienated from humanity in general, and the whole episode worked up to a well-portrayed take on how people cope when they're completely alone.

Again, it's not exactly hard SF. But it's a good example of a story that could be told in another genre, but seems stronger and more resonant in an SF setting. It's also the best episode of the series by an absolute mile.

[wedgebert]

Hey, I liked Space: Above and Beyond, not for the science but because of the feel of the show. Of course I didn't like the pilots also went down and fought the land battles as well.

I use three different definitions for talking about sci-fi.

First is Science Fiction. This is what many people consider "hard" sci-fi. Stories based off real science to the point where you have a hard time figuring out what is true and what is made up. Stuff by Clarke, Charles Sheffield and my favorite, Stephen Baxter would fall into this category.

Next is Sci-Fi. This is where the science is sorta believeable, but contains something that is kinda out there. B5, Star Wars, and SG-1 would fall into this category, along with stuff like Weber's Honor Harrington series.

Finally is Science-Fantasy. This is where very little seems possible or even makes sense. Technology isn't explained and tends to seem like magic. Star Trek falls into this category. I would consider it sci-fi, but it's so inconsistent and so blantently disobeys the laws of physics that I had to stick it here. At the rate it was going with Voyager and Enterprise, I was thinking of making a 4th category and just dropping the "Science" part altogether.

[Ba Witda]

Of course, then there is the term "sci-fi." It was originated by Forrest J Ackerman, meant to resonate with "hi-fi." However, fandom largely took it up to describe bad television and movie science fiction. This was likely because of Ackerman's association with B-Movies due to his magazine, Famous Monsters of Filmland. There's still some debate on the proper use of the term, Ackerman still arguing for the use of his term, while a large portion of fandom uses it for their own evil purposes.

Interestingly, fans use a variation, "skiffy," to describe sci-fi they enjoy. Mortals are amusing, as always.

As a reference, Ba got his information from Fandom As She is Spoke (http://www.ansible.demon.co.uk/writing/sfx/sfx004.html), a column by David Langford from SFX magazine.

[QuagmaPhage]

Well, by "definition" science involves biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics, and astronomy. So, a fiction story involving any of these could rightly be considered "science-fiction."

I have to agree with gethen that your definition is limited. Science fiction (SF) is fiction that deals with any kind of science. That being archaeology, sociology, psychology, history, astronomy, physics, biology etc. Your subset of science fiction is what is commonly referred to as hard science fiction (HSF). Stories like 1984, Alice In Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels (I'm not sure this is the correct name in English), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Brave New World, Animal Farm, The Lost World (by Conan Doyle) are science fiction although they don't contain much astronomy, biology or physics.

But just because a piece of fiction take place in Space or on some distant planet it is automaticaly SF. Star Wars for example is pure fantasy and doesn't deserve to be labelled as SF. Star Trek is somewhere in the middle because of it's sometimes obvious plotdevices that only serve to finish the episode so that we can start the next episode in another solar system. Just because someone decides to write a book of about the science of Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever doesn't excuse that the technobabble is just an easy way out of problems.


While ranting the above I have tried to come up with some episodes from ST:TOS that actually contains generic SF: Space Seed, The Enemy Within, Dagger of the Mind, The Devil in the Dark, Mirror Mirror, Is there in Truth no Beauty, Let that be your last Battlefield and The Ultimate Computer. :D Star Trek started as a way for Gene Roddenbery to tell stories about society that he wasn't allowed to tell on other shows. Unfortunately since ST:TNG it has turned too much into a money machine.

In the book Greetings, Carbon-based Bipeds! Arthur C. Clarke sometimes come talk about SF and this quote is attached to the chapter Aspects of Science Fiction:
If you have to ask what science fiction is, you'l never know. - Anon.

[SouthofHeaven]

Brave New World can be considered Science Fiction, However, it was more a commentary on civilization. But again I think most good Science fiction makes a commentary on civilization. The one thing I can't stand ( And I apologize to those on this board that likes the stuff) is that teh fantasy stuff you see in teh book stores and star trek and star wars (now I like star wars, never a fan of Star Trek) being the only thing that is considered science fiction. Crichton's books are sicence fiction, actuallu more so than Star Trek, becuase He uses real science to tell a story. Granted it is skewed to the plot but none the less it is science. Science Fistion does not have to take place in Space or the future or on some distant planet etc etc.

[captain swoop]

Oh no. Had this argument with my senior highschool English teacher--the definition of science fiction. I maintained that the novel, Brave New World was a work of sf because it dealt with a society developed in a post-apocalyptic (population disaster) world. She argued that it was not sf because it didn't deal with "real science." She really hated science fiction and was trying to explain why that novel was required reading.

It's a snobbery thing. Sci-Fi has to be bad (In the UK anyway) because it isn't written by the sort of person who goes to dinner parties in Notting Hill or Islington.

[Iain Lambert]

It sounds rather like your highschool English teacher was hung up on the age-old problem of getting SF novels recognised as literature.

All Sci-Fi is rubbish.
"Ah, but this isn't rubbish" you exclaim.
Well then, its not Sci-Fi.

See Wells, H.G. for the other classic example

[gethen]

It sounds rather like your highschool English teacher was hung up on the age-old problem of getting SF novels recognised as literature.

All Sci-Fi is rubbish.
"Ah, but this isn't rubbish" you exclaim.
Well then, its not Sci-Fi.

See Wells, H.G. for the other classic example

Exactly. While I do consider the likes of Brave New World, 1984, and H.G. Wells to be science fiction, I realize that there may not be much if any hard science in these books. To some degree, say with H.G. Wells, the science may have been limited by the times. Still, I think that any book that deals with the aftermath of a world wide apocalypse has at least the potential to be science fiction, depending on how it's handled. I much prefer that type of sf to the "cowboys-in-outer-space" style of Star Wars. Not that I don't enjoy the Star Wars movies-- just don't think they're real science fiction.

It's pretty hard to define sf in general. So many storylines appear to be genuine sf, but the way the story is told often turns them into fantasy. Some authors however, like the late Robert Forward, make every effort to incorporate good science into the story that there can't be much argument about them. Maybe starting with some general categories and then refining those categories would be helpful. For example.

1. Stories dealing with human travel beyond the earth.
2. Stories dealing with time travel.
3. Stories dealing with life in a post-apocalyptic future.
4. Stories dealing with alternate universes.

These are just examples, add or subtract as you see fit. Then you might set some rules to furthur limit the definition.

Wow. I'm really getting anal here. That's more organized than I've ever been in real life. :wink:

[ocasey3]

This thread has made me really think about what I consider real sci-fi. I agree that there are things that are called sci-fi but resonate more as fanasy. Star Wars comes up a lot. The thing with SW is that there is not much talk about anything really scientific because science is only a backdrop to the story,ie. hyperdrive, Death Stars, clones. I always liked the comparison of SW to an opera. Many feel that SW is sci-fi because of the obvious technology and the fact that it takes place "in a galaxy far, far away..." but the story could happen anywhere at anytime, much like Hamlet.

Star Trek, I love, no matter how much it is trashed :D . But, even though I know how inconsistant it was and is ( did they forget they had shuttle craft?????), especially in the hard science department, I liked the social science aspects of the show. That's why I really liked DS-9. What interests many of us is how people interact and how the blending of cultures creates so many problems and yet can enrich the lives of all involved.

Some books that I always thought of as borderline sci-fi - fantasy, I now see as really very sci-fi. McCaffrey's Pern books, have genetics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, meteorolgy, biology, xeno-biology, agriculture, geology, pshychology, anthropology and archaeology, etc.

But it really is a very subjective thing. 8)

[Nightfall]

I have to agree with gethen that your definition is limited. Science fiction (SF) is fiction that deals with any kind of science. That being archaeology, sociology, psychology, history, astronomy, physics, biology etc. Your subset of science fiction is what is commonly referred to as hard science fiction (HSF). Stories like 1984, Alice In Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels (I'm not sure this is the correct name in English), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Brave New World, Animal Farm, The Lost World (by Conan Doyle) are science fiction although they don't contain much astronomy, biology or physics.


Can fiction based off of the soft "sciences" like psychology and sociolgy be considered science fiction? I think that nebularian's version of what science fiction is correct because it is narrow.

Unless you have a good reason to do so, I wouldn't lump history or archaeology in with the sciences. Besides those subjects already have a genre based around the fictionalized view of them--historical fiction.

But the real question would be, can we consider it science-fiction when the science is all wrong?
How about a fourth group called psuedo-sci-fi?

[ocasey3]

Historical fiction deals with fictionalized accounts of real events in history where as alternative fiction deals with what might have happened if certain events had a different outcome. Sort of puts these stories in the alternate universe category. Archaelogy has its place in sci-fi, such as off-Earth discoveries, or even in artifacts that might point to some ET type civilization that visited Earth some time in the past. Psychology has its place too. The Matrix, Total Recall, even 2001 deal heavily with psychology and is very central to the story line.

[MartianMarvin]

Would Jules Verne's works be considered "soft" sci-fi?

IMO, Science Fiction is best viewed as material that inspires us. Often, sci-fi stories speculate about technologies that are at best theoretical, sometimes hypothetical, or likely impossible. Still, we aspire to develop those wonderful things. We just have to use real science to get there. Science Fiction gives us possible paths for human ingenuity to someday follow.

[/code]

[wedgebert]

[quote

Exactly. While I do 1. Stories dealing with human travel beyond the earth.
2. Stories dealing with time travel.
3. Stories dealing with life in a post-apocalyptic future.
4. Stories dealing with alternate universes.

These are just examples, add or subtract as you see fit. Then you might set some rules to furthur limit the definition.

Wow. I'm really getting anal here. That's more organized than I've ever been in real life. :wink:[/quote]

I think Sci-Fi is HOW you do something, not WHAT you do.

1. Tthere was a D&D ruleset called SpellJammer which let you fly in space using sailing ships (and some cool non-human stuff).

2. Again, magic could easily allow you travel back in time.

3. A meteor or comet-strike could create a post-apocalypitic world, yet aside from that one fact, nothing else in the story could have anything to do with science.

4. Well, I don't want to bring the magic point up again, but the closest other reason I could come up with is alternate history.

[Geoff394]

I use a simple test. If you remove the science do you change the plot? If yes, it's science fiction, if no it's Fantasy.

Science fiction is considered 'location' to Hollywood (i.e. future or outer space) but 99% of all movies are fantasy. Two exceptions I can think of are "Gattaca" and "2001"

[OscartheGrouch]

The difference between popular SF, a very loose term, and HSF (a good term I'd never heard before) reminds me of the literature text in high school, Perrine I think, which drew a distinction between "escape" and "interpretive" fiction in general. Escape fiction takes you away from reality for awhile. Interpretive fiction puts you right back in reality and says "here it is", though you might not immediately recognize it. Some works are both, like LOTR.

Jules Verne was both too. 10^5km Under the Sea was a fun read, and also got you to think about what happens when powerless people manage to get power to carry out their social vision.

One of the works that leans toward interpretive is of course Planet of the Apes. It has very little technology and no happy ending but is so well-done in spite of (because of?) it that POTA has lost none of its power. They went Gene Roddenberry one better, in that apes can say things even Martians can't. Contrast it with the waste-of-film remake that improved the costumes and effects but totally lost the point of the original. Maybe these will be the future archetypes of the genre.

What I liked about Space: Above and Beyond was its early-WW2 feel and its frequent allusions to the Pacific Theater, my specialty. Notice the ship's name, Saratoga, which was a famous if hard-luck carrier from that time frame. I remember the episode where they capture a Chig vessel and raid their planet with it, citing the Doolittle raid of Tokyo. Another time the Colonel discourses briefly on the New Guinea campaign and how it was a major strategic mistake for the Japanese. But these things don't resonate well in the generation that asks: "We had a war with Japan? No way! Who won?" Worst of all, Fox found out it was my absolute favorite show, so they cancelled it after one season and left me hanging.

[waynek]

The thing with SW is that there is not much talk about anything really scientific because science is only a backdrop to the story...

One thing I've always liked about SW (as opposed to Trek etc) is that they don't really TRY to explain the technology, it just "is". They ruined this a bit when they tried to get all technical about what causes the Force, but for the most part the characters (and thus the audience) just accept the technology as a tool without delving into how it works. In the context of this thread, that may make it less "science fiction", but it doesn't make me enjoy it less.


Some books that I always thought of as borderline sci-fi - fantasy, I now see as really very sci-fi. McCaffrey's Pern books, have genetics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, meteorolgy, biology, xeno-biology, agriculture, geology, pshychology, anthropology and archaeology, etc.
But it really is a very subjective thing. 8)

Don't get me wrong, I've always like McCaffrey, but I do consider most of her stuff science-fantasy (when compared to Niven etc.) The science you mention is the only thing keeping it from being just plain Fantasy. I don't think there are many other books involving dragons that worry too much about the science of them. The "paranormal" aspects of the Pern series works well for the stories but isn't really supported by science at all. To bring in an element of "on-topicness", the astronomy in the earlier Pern books isn't that great either. Some of the characteristics of the Red Star (orbit for example) were patched up in later books, but the science overall is still fairly weak.

Let me take a shot at defining things from my perspective (probably will be similar to earlier posts, although I don't distinguish between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" etc.)

Hard sci-fi - Really tries to get the science right, but may still include things beyond current theory/understanding.

Sci-fi - The story telling comes first, but some attempt is made to keep the science fairly believable.

Sci-fantasy - Pretty much anything goes, but whenever possible science is invoked rather than magic etc.

Fantasy - All bets are off science-wise, although when not using the supernatural it is still nice to see the "mundane" science done correctly.[/quote]

[darkhunter]

I divide HSF from SF / Sci-Fantasy by plausibility:

HSF: Could happen, given time and research (1984, Rocheworld) Real science (for the time) with little leeway for plot device

SF: could happen, with a possibly rather large change in our understanding of science (Ringworld, Contact )
Real Science, deviations for the plot accepted

Sci-Fantasy: as soon as paranormal powers/magic shows up. Most likley impossible to happen. (the Rifts Role Playing Game, ST:TNG)

Don't get me wrong--I like all versions of Science Fiction (+Westerns, Fantasy, Techno-thrillers, several non-fictions subjects, ect). I see it as just a way to catagorize books for the mood I'm in read...

Also, some series/universes can contain all three versions (Known Space with the Grogs, Star trek episodes without the need for telepathy...) so the lines are blurry....

[gethen]

I like darkhunter's plausibility test. Not perfect and still somewhat subjective, but pretty useful.

[nebularain]

Well, by "definition" science involves biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics, and astronomy. So, a fiction story involving any of these could rightly be considered "science-fiction."

I have to agree with gethen that your definition is limited. Science fiction (SF) is fiction that deals with any kind of science. That being archaeology, sociology, psychology, history, astronomy, physics, biology etc. Your subset of science fiction is what is commonly referred to as hard science fiction (HSF). Stories like 1984, Alice In Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels (I'm not sure this is the correct name in English), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Brave New World, Animal Farm, The Lost World (by Conan Doyle) are science fiction although they don't contain much astronomy, biology or physics.

OK, so I forgot a few disciplines. :-?

But your second sentence is exactly the point I was trying to make (that is: "Science fiction (SF) is fiction that deals with any kind of science."). :)

[ocasey3]

I like the idea of sub-categorizing sci-fi, as it is often done with other genres such as mystery. But having worked for Borders Books for several years, don't expect retailers to separate these categories. When is the last time you saw fantasy and sci-fi shelved apart? I received more complaints about that than just about anything else. There just isn't enough time or people. :-?

[gethen]

I like the idea of sub-categorizing sci-fi, as it is often done with other genres such as mystery. But having worked for Borders Books for several years, don't expect retailers to separate these categories. When is the last time you saw fantasy and sci-fi shelved apart? I received more complaints about that than just about anything else. There just isn't enough time or people. :-?

I think I might have been the one complaining. :oops: I guess that if we, who all apparently love sf, can't agree on a strict definition, then we shuldn't expect the folks at Borders, for instance, to differentiate either.

[QuagmaPhage]

We are never going to agree on a strict or precise definition af science fiction. People have been arguing over this for generations. I found this page:
http://www.panix.com/~gokce/sf_defn.html
where famous authors have tried to define SF.

I particular like these definitions:

Ray Bradbury
Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together.

Theodore Sturgeon
A science fiction story is a story built around human beings, with a human problem and a human solution, which would not have happened at all without its scientific content.

Geoff394's test of whether you change the plot if you remove the science is probably the best way to distinguish between SF and fantasy.

[Defender]

I don't like Ray Bradbury's definition; it sounds like it's playing into the hands of those people who believe SF is some kind of predictive literature, designed to preempt the future.

I prefer the term speculative fiction, as it's more general, and gives a better idea as to the aims of the form- plus, you can use the same acronym. Spec fic allows you to include books like The Lathe of Heaven which are technically fantasy, but are usually classed as sci-fi.

[informant]

A few comments:

Twilight Zone: Most of the episodes were not science fiction, IIRC, although some were.

Brave New World: Not SF?! How so? Here you have a story that:
1) happens in “the future”;
2) gives a central part to genetic engineering (well, eugeny);
3) according to other posters here, takes place in a post-apocalyptic setting (I did not remember that).

You can say that Aldous Huxley was not a SF writer, and you’ll be right, but I don’t see how you can justify Brave New World not being SF.

1984: Similar arguments to Brave New World.

The Lost World: But of course.

Alice In Wonderland, Animal Farm: these are fantasy to me.

I am not too picky about what constitutes “science fiction”. Drawing a line between “science fiction” and “scifi” (or what other subcategories you may choose), seems a bit pedantic to me. OK, some science fiction will have ludicrous science – that’s just bad SF (alas, sometimes it can still be fun).
As long as a story discusses the implications of some as-yet not invented form of technology, I call it science fiction. Some writers will prefer to look at the social consequences of technology, while others prefer to imerse themselves in the scientific details. It’s all science fiction to me.
If the story takes place in the future, or involves space travel, then it’s also science fiction (possibly intertwined with fantasy).

[glen chapman]

By definition, science fiction is a story in which the particular piece of science (good or bad) is esential to make the story work.

Take Terminator for instance. Without time travel or/and a cyborg. The story can not exist. However the film "Escape From New York" could actually be told as a typical prison story.

The broadest sub-catagory of the genre is hard and soft science fiction. The hard sciences are such things as engineering astronomy etc. esentially anything that requires high level maths to exist.

The soft sciences have a more social bent - anthropolgy, theology etc.

A good example of hard science would be say 'Mission Of Gravity; while soft science is well represented by 'Demolished Man' which has telepathy as its central theme.

Glen C

[wedgebert]

By definition, science fiction is a story in which the particular piece of science (good or bad) is esential to make the story work.

Take Terminator for instance. Without time travel or/and a cyborg. The story can not exist. However the film "Escape From New York" could actually be told as a typical prison story.

The broadest sub-catagory of the genre is hard and soft science fiction. The hard sciences are such things as engineering astronomy etc. esentially anything that requires high level maths to exist.

The soft sciences have a more social bent - anthropolgy, theology etc.

A good example of hard science would be say 'Mission Of Gravity; while soft science is well represented by 'Demolished Man' which has telepathy as its central theme.

Glen C

I think the accepted difference between "Hard" and "Soft" science fiction is the varying level of the science. Hard sci-fi tends to have more detailed, realisitic and complicated science. The science itself is almost like a character. Soft sci-fi tends to push the science into the background and uses it as a means to an end.

Examples:

Anything by Stephen Baxter tends to be Hard Science Fiction. He uses existing science and extrapolates very plausible futures and technology from them. Some of his books even have a short appendices in the back that say "Yes, this is real technology, or I made this up based off this".

The StarFist series by David Sherman and Dan Cragg is soft sci-fi. It's about marines a few hundred years in the future. They use plasma weapons, FTL travel (but not communications), and similar techology, but for the most part it's all in the background. The stories focus on the marines and their enemies, not on how their plasma rifles work.

[glen chapman]

No disagreement over Baxter, though with the other example, which I confess I have not read, an argument could be mounted that they may be more closely related to miltary science fiction ala Joe Halderman, or, depending on the tone; Space Opera.

Up till 12 months ago I would have agreed with your thoughts. But I read the transcript of a discussion held at Asimovs involving three or four of the main SF editors, they seemed to feel the orginal definition I gave reflects the current mood in the genre.

As someone pointed out eariler - people have argued this for years. No doubt some one will come along in the future, see this thread, and bang their head on the desk, muttering "Poor mis-guided fools."

Glen C

[SeanF]

Take Terminator for instance. Without time travel or/and a cyborg. The story can not exist.

Rogue law enforcement officer attempts to protect woman from methodical hired killer. No sci-fi, same story.

[wedgebert]

Take Terminator for instance. Without time travel or/and a cyborg. The story can not exist.

Rogue law enforcement officer attempts to protect woman from methodical hired killer. No sci-fi, same story.

Not the same story. The story was about robots trying to kill the leader of the human resistance movement. Take out the robots and the humans have nothing to resist.

No disagreement over Baxter, though with the other example, which I confess I have not read, an argument could be mounted that they may be more closely related to miltary science fiction ala Joe Halderman, or, depending on the tone; Space Opera

It's definitatly military sci-fi, but in terms of Hard/Soft, it's also soft sci-fi.

[OscartheGrouch]

How about post-apocalypse literature and movies? Mad Max, Omega Man (I think), Soylant Green, Reign of Fire? Are these a separate genre or a subset of sci-fi and/or fantasy? They frequently invoke natural phenomena, technological change, or bad use of existing technology, like thermonuclear "strategic assets".

Some of them don't pass the but-for test in that the story could have happened without an apocalypse. The Blood of Heroes had the exact same plot as Hoosiers, only in one you had Rutger Hauer's R-rated underdog jugging team, and in the other you had Lex Luthor's PG-rated underdog basketball team, both trying to knock off the big-city team.

[Donnie B.]

Take Terminator for instance. Without time travel or/and a cyborg. The story can not exist.

Rogue law enforcement officer attempts to protect woman from methodical hired killer. No sci-fi, same story.

Not the same story. The story was about robots trying to kill the leader of the human resistance movement. Take out the robots and the humans have nothing to resist.

Can't really agree here. The motivation for the killer is pretty much irrelevant. Alfred Hitchcock was well aware of this. He mentioned that his suspense films usually involved somebody-or-other trying to get something-or-other. He called the object a "Maguffin", based on an old joke. His point was, it didn't really matter what the bad guys were after: atomic secrets, some incriminating information they didn't want revealed, a secret plan. All that mattered was that they wanted it badly enough to kill, and the good guys wanted to keep them from getting it just as badly.

So the fact that Terminator has a s/f back story doesn't really matter that much. It could just as easily have been something else. All the s/f angle did was make the killer that much harder to stop. As Sean said, it was just a conventional thriller with a s/f setting.

Here's one that's a bit harder, I think: Back To the Future. Is it s/f or not? It depends crucially on its s/f trappings, but in many ways it's more of a coming-of-age story.

[wedgebert]

Well, if you say that the story behind the plot doesn't matter, then there are about 3 or 4 different movies and the rest are exact clones.

Star Wars could have been set in WWII, with Nazis as the empire and the Jewish underground movement as the Rebellion. Wouldn't make it the same movie though. Same concept, people trying to survive/overthrow their evil oppessors, maybe concentration camps could be considered the death star (both are used for genocide).

Alien could be about a group of merchants in Africa who are being attacked by a rabid lion duing the 1800s. Same concept, a group of people are attacked by what they consider a monster and have no way to get help.

If taking the science out radically alters the story, if not the plot, then it's Science Fiction.

Note, I wouldn't consider Mad Max science fiction. Just being set in a post-apocalypitic world doesn't make you Sci-Fi. Otherwise movies like the Post Man would be sci-fi as well.

[QuagmaPhage]

Otherwise movies like the Post Man would be sci-fi as well.

I have not seen the movie, but to David Brin's defense I would count the book as science fiction. So go and read the book eventhough the movie sucks.

Nightfall asked earlier about fiction based on soft "sciences" like psychology, sociology and history can be considered science fiction. I think it is only necessary to mention Asimov's Foundation trilogy to make my point. It's the blending of psychology and history into psychohistory that is the basis for the whole plot and that which prevents the galaxy from total collapse. Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is another example.

I have always felt that hard science fiction is about the hard/natural sciences that are harder to explain. Some of Stephen Baxter's books are quit unreadable if you don't know anything about cosmology or quantum mechanics. Whereas Mary Doria Russel's The Sparrow and Children of God are more easy to read because the author doesn't focus on the technology but more on the charachters and society.

[SeanF]

Well, if you say that the story behind the plot doesn't matter, then there are about 3 or 4 different movies and the rest are exact clones.


Well, they're not exact clones. But when you really boil it down, there are only three different stories. In a writing class, they'll identify them as man vs. man, man vs. nature, and man vs. self.

The question you've brought up is the importance of the "science" aspect of an allegedly sci-fi story. In that regard, I don't see that removing the sci-fi "trappings" from Terminator is significantly different than removing the sci-fi "trappings" from Escape From New York.

[glen chapman]

We 'are' talking about the same Terminator. A film in which a self aware AI invents time travel to send an agent of destruction back to kill the mother of the rebel (who isn't born yet)

How can this part of the story be told in any other genre except science fiction. Sure the pursuit and capture could be anything. But the point is -the woman to be killed plays no true part in the hoped for downfall of the AI.

As a result of the AI's actions, we end up with a self fullfilling future. She trains her son for what is to come.

Yes, Back To The Future, is a difficult one. Taken as a trilogy, the science is essential. But the first film could almost be considered fantasy.

Star Wars: Buried in the mist of time is the legend of the fall of the fighting holy order 'Knight's Templer' The similarities are astonishing.

Nightfall is an interesting example. Again I'd argue the story can't exist without the hard science of a multiple binary-star system. Asimov does play the soft science card to tell the story. But the basic concept is buried in the complex maths of a planet inhabitating such a system.

One of Asimov's other great contribution to the genre was the story 'Trends' In the story a private space launch is in trouble from reactionary religious groups. To my knowledge it is the first time soft sf elements were brought in as a source of conflict for a hard sf theme.

Glen C

[nebularain]

Well, if you say that the story behind the plot doesn't matter, then there are about 3 or 4 different movies and the rest are exact clones.


Well, they're not exact clones. But when you really boil it down, there are only three different stories. In a writing class, they'll identify them as man vs. man, man vs. nature, and man vs. self.


Didn't Shakespeare say something like there are only four plots? (Of course, everytime I hear someone saying this no one can say what those four are, so I don't know. :( )

[Zombywoof (Jedi Knight)]

Well I find a lot of Sci-Fi merges with Fantasy. But some are better at being more like SF than Fantasy. I like Babylon 5 alot, It is pretty good SF but it has some fantasy in it too, but what I like about it is that there is great imagination in the series. But stuff like the old Battlestar Gallactica gets pretty cheesy, but I used to watch it back then. I'l watch SF if it's good or bad. I think 2001, A Space Odyssey was great SF. But this is a long topic that I could go on and on and everybody has different opinions. But what I would consider defining SF over Fantasy would be that the physics in the story should follow real world physics, not the "magic wand effect".

[dgruss23]

Interesting thread! There are so many shades to the stories lumped into sci-fi that it would be hard to classify many of them. Here are a few random thoughts I have after reading through this thread:

1. If the setting is space or the plot involves aliens - most people automatically classify the story as Sci-fi.

2. Continuing with the above, in order to write a compelling plot in those settings, writers must create ways to travel between planets, technologies to blow up things and so on. These elements of the story often require ignoring what we know or think is possible and creating concepts like warp drive, jump gates, and hyperspace. If the writers stuck to what is possible, the story would be limited - because the objectives of these stories are not really science.

Science is incorporated if it can be done so conveniently in these cases. For example, in Babylon5 the Earth ships rotate to generate gravity as does B5 itself. I would actually classify these stories as "space adventures" and I'm thinking that I may have read that from Carl Sagan - perhaps in Demon Haunted World?

3. I agree with those that feel that true "Hard" sci fi has real science as a key element to the plot - or despite a space setting the author attempts to stick to the science that is known or plausible. I think Nightfall is a good example. Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park and Timeline would be other good examples. Clarks 2010 and The Hammer of God are excellent examples - the last probably the best example I've ever read.

So I boil stories with space settings down to two categories: (1) Space Action Adventure and (2)Science Fiction.

[nebularain]

But it is interesting how only settings involving space or aliens or technology are considered sci-fi.

What of the movies involving geology (specifically the movies centered on a volcano errupting, i.e. Dante's Peak)? Or biology (i.e. Medicine Man)? I beleive these get put into the "Action/Adventure" or "Drama" categories. Weird.

[Nightfall]

Didn't Shakespeare say something like there are only four plots? (Of course, everytime I hear someone saying this no one can say what those four are, so I don't know. :( )

Could you give us a reference? It might help determining what Shakespeare is talking about.

Here are a couple other types of conflict, they sort of fit under the three main types of conflict, but I think they deserve their own mention: Man vs. Society, Man vs. Machine, Man vs. God/Fate.

[informant]

MHO:

But it is interesting how only settings involving space or aliens or technology are considered sci-fi.

I don't think that's what people meant. If the settings involve space or the future, then that automatically makes the story science fiction (my opinion). But there can be science fiction in other settings.

What of the movies involving geology (specifically the movies centered on a volcano errupting, i.e. Dante's Peak)?

I did not see Dante's Peak, so I can't comment on that example. But my opinion is that a story like that can be science fiction too, if it discusses or postulates some as-yet inexistent technological/scientific discovery.

Or biology (i.e. Medicine Man)?

I consider Medicine Man science fiction. Biology and medicine are sciences too.

[nebularain]

(snip)
I did not see Dante's Peak, so I can't comment on that example. But my opinion is that a story like that could be science fiction too, if it discussed or postulated some as-yet inexistent technological/scientific discovery.

(snip)

I consider Medicine Man science fiction. Biology and medicine are sciences too.

Well, you do, yes, but I was thinking more of the general public - and video stores...

[informant]

What do they know? They're selling fantasy as science fiction these days.
The (quote, unquote) Sci-Fi Channel's programming seems to be mostly horror...

[Zombywoof (Jedi Knight)]

What I mean by that would be "Brave New World" for example. A story of a different type of future, not much on fancy new technologies, although they are in the story but the story isn't based on those technologies. More like just a different type of society.

[dgruss23]

But it is interesting how only settings involving space or aliens or technology are considered sci-fi.

What of the movies involving geology (specifically the movies centered on a volcano errupting, i.e. Dante's Peak)? Or biology (i.e. Medicine Man)? I beleive these get put into the "Action/Adventure" or "Drama" categories. Weird.

It seem that most people think "Science fiction - space/aliens" so a lot of people probably don't think of Dante's peak type movies as science fiction, but rather adventure.

As for Dante's peak - AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just about walked out of the theatre the movie was so unrealistic. This is a classic example of BAD BAD BAD science fiction. The writers read up a little on volcanic activity, included some real science and then proceded to throw the actors into situations for the sake of drama that destroyed any hopes of the story being a good science fiction story. For example - driving on lava!!! Or my favorite - taking a boat across an acid lake. Hmmm the boat motor gets burned up, the woman that jumps in the lake dies from the burns, but the lead actors/actresses are unharmed as they push the boat with their hands wrapped in shirts. C'mon - If they wanted the story to be realistic science fiction the lead characters should've died 3 or 4 times - or never been in those ridiculous situations in the first place!

Twister followed the same ridiculous formula (need I point to more than the climactic scene where they've strapped themselves to some metal bars in a shed).

[rst]

Lord Asimov referred to it as SF, Speculative fiction. Looking into a world that could possibly happen as opposed to something which could not, which is put into the bracket of fantasy....I hope i'm not repeating what someone's already said, but Glom may remember this from something i said about 3 years ago (during my asimov phase)

[glen chapman]

Brave you World is a difficult book to pigeon-hole. At it's absolute core is social comentary about many societies that still exist today - perhaps thats the enduring charm.

On the other hand I feel the science fiction elements are strong enough for inclusion in the genre.

The technology to build babies with specifc attributes is core to the story. Without it, I can't see how the society described could be created. Further, without the technology, the society would be plagued with the same self doubts of social justice many societies struggle with today.

And this is the charm of the book. The author removed the whole problem of 'longing and wanting to better yourself' You just didn't understand you had it any worse than anyone else. except of course if you where an Alpha plus, and I guess this is why the story is told through their eyes.

Glen C